Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Austria V CA

    Uploaded by

    Angelica
    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. In 1961, Abad was robbed while traveling home. The robbery was the subject of a criminal case but the culprits were not convicted. Since Abad did not return the jewelry or pay its value, Austria sued. Abad argued she was not liable due to the robbery. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Abad, holding that prior conviction of culprits is not required to establish a robbery occurred to exempt one from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as long as the robbery can be established by preponderant evidence without the debtor's fault.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Austria V CA

    Uploaded by

    Angelica
    63 views2 pages
    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. In 1961, Abad was robbed while traveling home. The robbery was the subject of a criminal case but the culprits were not convicted. Since Abad did not return the jewelry or pay its value, Austria sued. Abad argued she was not liable due to the robbery. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Abad, holding that prior conviction of culprits is not required to establish a robbery occurred to exempt one from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as long as the robbery can be established by preponderant evidence without the debtor's fault.

    Original Title

    Austria v CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. In 1961, Abad was robbed while traveling home. The robbery was the subject of a criminal case but the culprits were not convicted. Since Abad did not return the jewelry or pay its value, Austria sued. Abad argued she was not liable due to the robbery. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Abad, holding that prior conviction of culprits is not required to establish a robbery occurred to exempt one from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as long as the robbery can be established by preponderant evidence without the debtor's fault.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views2 pages

    Austria V CA

    Uploaded by

    Angelica
    Maria Abad received a pendant with diamonds from Guillermo Austria to sell on commission or return on demand. In 1961, Abad was robbed while traveling home. The robbery was the subject of a criminal case but the culprits were not convicted. Since Abad did not return the jewelry or pay its value, Austria sued. Abad argued she was not liable due to the robbery. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Abad, holding that prior conviction of culprits is not required to establish a robbery occurred to exempt one from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, as long as the robbery can be established by preponderant evidence without the debtor's fault.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Austria v.

    CA robbery, in order to be absolved from civil liability for


    GR No. L-29640 | June 10, 1971 | Reyes, J.B.L., J. the loss or disappearance of the entrusted articles.

    SUMMARY: Abad received from Austria one pendant with ISSUES


    diamonds to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on WON prior conviction for robbery is necessary to exempt the
    demand. The pendant was stolen from Abad. Since Abad failed consignee from liability for the loss – NO
    to return the jewelry or pay for its value, Austria sued her and  To avail of the exemption granted in the law (Art.
    her husband. The Abad spouses argued that they were not 1174), it is not necessary that the persons responsible
    liable because of robbery which was a fortuitous event. SC for the occurrence should be found or punished; it
    ruled in favor of Abad. would only be sufficient to establish that the
    enforceable event, the robbery in this case, did take
    SC held that prior conviction for robbery is not necessary to place without any concurrent fault on the debtor's
    exempt the defendants from liability. To avail of the exemption part (Art. 1170), and this can be done by
    under Art. 1174, it is not necessary that the persons preponderant evidence.
    responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished; it  To require in the present action for recovery the prior
    would only be sufficient to establish that the enforceable conviction of the culprits in the criminal case, in order
    event, the robbery in this case, did take place without any to establish the robbery as a fact, would be to
    concurrent fault on the debtor's part (Art. 1170), and this can demand proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove a
    be done by preponderant evidence. fact in a civil case.
     Moreover, a court finding that robbery has happened
    FACTS
    would not necessarily mean that those accused in the
     In a receipt, Maria Abad acknowledged that she
    criminal action should be found guilty of the crime;
    received from Guillermo Austria one (1) pendant with
    nor would a ruling that those actually accused did not
    diamonds valued at P4,500 to be sold on commission
    commit the robbery be inconsistent with a finding
    basis or to be returned on demand.
    that a robbery did take place. The evidence to
     In 1961, Abad, while on her way home in
    establish these facts would not necessarily be the
    Mandaluyong, Rizal, was accosted by two men who
    same.
    snatched her purse containing jewelry and cash.
    Among the jewelry taken was the consigned pendant.
    WON Abad was negligent – NO
    The incident became the subject of a criminal case
     Considering the high incidence of crimes against
    filed in CFI.
    persons and property in the City of Manila, Abad may
     As Abad failed to return the jewelry or pay for its
    be faulted for negligence per se when she returned
    value notwithstanding demands, Austria brought
    alone to her house in the evening, carrying jewelry of
    before CFI an action against her and her husband for
    considerable value. However, this is not the case in
    recovery of the pendant or of its value, and damages.
    1961, when the robbery took place, as criminality
     Defendant spouses set up the defense that the
    had not by far reached the levels attained in (1971).
    alleged robbery had extinguished their obligation.
     CFI ruled in favor of petitioner – defendants failed to RULING: Petition is DISMISSED.
    prove the fact of robbery or if indeed it was
    committed, that Abad was guilty of negligence when NOTES
    she went home without any companion, although it To constitute fortuitous event, it is necessary that:
    was already getting dark and she was carrying a large (1) the event must be independent of the human will (or
    amount of cash and valuables. rather, of the debtor's or obligor's);
     CA reversed CFI – respondents were not responsible (2) the occurrence must render it impossible for the debtor to
    for the loss of the jewelry on account of a fortuitous fulfill the obligation, in a normal manner; and that
    event. (3) the obligor must be free of participation in, or aggravation
     Hence this petition for review. Petitioner argued that of, the injury to the creditor.
    occurrence of robbery should be proved by final
    judgment of conviction in a criminal case. He added ART. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by law, or when
    that to adopt a different view would be to encourage it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of
    persons accountable for goods or properties received the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall
    in trust or consignment to connive with others, who be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen,
    would be willing to be accused in court for the or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
    ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations
    are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any
    manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy